This is the author’s version of a chapter accepted for publication in the Handbook of Peer Production. Changes resulting from the publishing process such as copy-editing, typesetting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. This author manuscript version is available for personal, non-commercial and no derivative uses only. Citation: Antoniadis, P. & Pantazis, A. (2021). P2P learning. In: M. O’Neil, C. Pentzold & S. Toupin (Eds.), The Handbook of Peer Production (pp. 197-210). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9781119537106 Available at: https://www.wiley.com/en-au/The+Handbook+of+Peer+Production-p-9781119537090 The Handbook of Peer Production Chapter 15 – P2P Learning Panayotis Antoniadis, NetHood, Switzerland Alekos Pantazis, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia Chapter 15 – P2P Learning 2 1. Introduction There are numerous terms referring to horizontal and collaborative learning processes and methodologies, including peer learning, p2p learning, cooperative learning, collaborative learning, connected learning, networked learning, experiential learning, self-organized learning, project/problem-based learning, DIY learning, informal learning, social learning, situated learning, connected learning, critical pedagogy, radical pedagogy, hacker pedagogy, hip-hop pedagogy, horizontal pedagogy, post-pedagogy, andragogy, peeragogy, democratic education, progressive education, open education, direct education, popular education, free education, freedom schools, free schools, deschooling, and more. While all of these terms refer in one way or another to the same ideal, the granting of more independence and freedom to learners, they can differ significantly when it comes to the learning situation for which they were devised and thus are most relevant for. Perhaps the most important difference concerns the age of the learners, which allows for different assumptions regarding agency and self- determination (e.g., between children vs. adults). Other important differentiating assumptions concern the type of knowledge (e.g., explicit vs. tacit) and the overall sociocultural context (e.g., Global North vs. Global South). Finally, technology has given rise to new possibilities extending existing terms and concepts or even introducing new ones. We use the term peer-to-peer (p2p) to describe such processes, thus making an explicit reference to technological p2p systems. The reason is that technology is being portrayed today as a key actor for the democratization of education (Benkler, 2006; Cronin, 2019; Knox, 2016; Williamson, 2015) and we believe that it is critical to better understand how technological tools can support p2p learning processes and the more or less hidden power asymmetries that lie behind the design and management of digital platforms themselves. Chapter 15 – P2P Learning 3 The term p2p was invented in the early 2000s (Oram, 2001) with the appearance of Napster, a p2p file sharing application that revolutionized online content sharing. It instigated a big shift toward the decentralization of the Internet at many levels, but also toward stricter policies on copyright infringement. Computers at the edge of the networks were (re- )imagined as “peers” performing identical functions, instead of “clients” connecting to powerful “servers.” Napster itself was not a truly p2p application in the sense that it depended heavily on a central server for indexing and searching content. It was only the actual transfer of content that was happening directly from edge computer to edge computer, without the mediation of a central server. What is interesting for our comparative work on p2p learning, is that the engineering analogy with p2p systems helps to see clearly how centralization and power asymmetries are often more or less “hidden” and can appear in different dimensions of a system. When applied to learning, the concept of peer-to-peer can also evoke many different interpretations and systemic challenges. For example, there are many cases where p2p learning and knowledge production methodologies could be established by a powerful entity in regards to a subordinate group, such as the employees of a company. More subtle influences and power structures could also exist in deliberately horizontal groups for various reasons, like a strong personality influencing a learning group in a certain direction, or a digital platform promoting certain types of activities rather than others. At a higher level, there are numerous cultural, political, social, and other power structures that significantly influence learning. From the very early days of formalized, and conservative, education systems there have been liberating forces toward more “progressive” education, like those described in Rousseau’s famous Emile; and later by famous progressive educators such as Pestalozzi, Montessori, and Steiner who celebrated the individuality of children and their capacity to learn, stressed the role of family life and the wider society, but Chapter 15 – P2P Learning 4 also of nature and impulses, and in general the importance of knowledge “beyond words.” As noted by education historian John Howlett (2013) “Rousseau’s Emile grows up in an environment designed, manipulated, and controlled entirely by the tutor.” This pattern acknowledging the liberating features of p2p learning approaches toward one dimension of learning but stressing power imbalances in others, will frequently be observed in this chapter. It is important to stress that this long thread of innovation around progressive education concerns mostly child-centered education. For adult learners, much less has been written and formalized. Andragogy (Knowles, 1980) is perhaps the closest concept to the idea of a p2p learning group, and Plato’s “Symposium” one of the first documented peer learning processes between adults. To structure the discussion, we have chosen three important dimensions of learning to refer to while analyzing various examples of methodologies, tools, and practices. 1) Curriculum selection: the choice of the learning objectives of an intentional or unintentional learning group. 2) Learning process: the different roles and interactions between different actors involved in the learning project, and their evolution over time. 3) Knowledge abstraction: the production of knowledge in the form of encyclopedic entries, tutorials, guidelines, tools, methodologies, and patterns. Note that there is already a lot of existing work aiming to summarize, classify, or analyze learning processes, which often focus on one or two of these dimensions (Topping, 2005; Wegner, 1991). Some of these high-level analyses are contextualized, like the education system in the US (Giroux, 2011; Monchinski, 2008) or Sweden (Laginder et al., 2013). Others address the technological dimension (Deimann, 2016; Williamson, 2015), while others focus more on political aspects (Haworth, 2012; Means, 2014). Chapter 15 – P2P Learning 5 There is also a body of literature on peer production, peer-to-peer and the commons. Benkler (2006) has coined the term “commons-based peer production” and discussed different areas of peer production. Bauwens, Kostakis, and Pazaitis (2019) have explicitly linked the term peer-to-peer with the commons, envisioning a societal transformation based on commons-based peer production and producing thorough research and concrete proposals. While our analysis will be based on work carried out in different educational settings and contexts, our main focus and contribution will be on intentional adult learning groups. We highlight four specific projects, which share an important characteristic - they are examples of p2p learning processes that include face-to-face interactions: • Two digital platforms, the P2P University (P2PU) and Openki.net, for creating and supporting self-organized learning groups in localities. • Two physical spaces, the Tzoumakers rural makerspace in Greece and L200, a central self-organized space in Zurich, Switzerland. In the following, we introduce the three learning dimensions we previously identified (Sections 2, 3, and 4) analyzing critically a selection of existing approaches in terms of visible or hidden power asymmetries. In Section 5 we analyze the underlying infrastructure, digital and physical, needed to support p2p learning projects. Section 6 concludes the chapter with a discussion on the need for a continuous struggle for democratic governance and empowerment, for which one of the most important tools is “reflection in action.” 2. Curriculum Selection There are different actors, such as the state, the family, the market, the community, that affect in different ways what people choose to learn, while their powerful influence is not always visible. For example, Ivan Illich (1971) warns us that “Everywhere the hidden Chapter 15 – P2P Learning 6 curriculum of schooling initiates the citizen to the myth that bureaucracies guided by scientific knowledge are efficient and benevolent.” Making, therefore, such choices more consciously and more independently should be part of the essence of p2p learning. However, entering the terms “p2p learning” in an online search engine brings up among the top results a whitepaper by the Versal Group which sees (2016) p2p learning as a means to “help your organization transition into a ‘learning organization’; become more agile and competitive; heighten collaboration and productivity” (p. 2), focusing on narrow potential benefits for a specific company which of course is the one to determine the